Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Wiki SciCiv]

None of the right-inclined posters here have considered the following: If the government can deny a person marriage based on their sexuality, what is stopping them from denying it based on your religion?

Exactly. With Government involved in Marriage like that, it creates an exact premise as covered by the 14th Amendment, as well as the interpretations of Loving vs. Virginia.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is for this reason they did not seek to apply the ideologies of the day in several instances, but to leave it open for flexibility.

If that's your argument for how the founding fathers, 18th century politicians, supported gay marriage like 21st century neo-liberals, then you're displaying exactly how much you know what you're talking about.

You're missing the point. The founding fathers don't have to specifically have been pro-marriage-equality. But the formative documents of the nation show that they WERE dedicated to creating fundamentally equal rights, INCLUDING rights that they didn't specifically detail.

[Almaniania]

That's nice, but marriage is a woman + a man, so no rights are being denied to gays. They also have the ability to marry the opposite sex.

Under what definition?

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary second edition. I was going to take a picture of the definition with my digital camera, but the batteries are dead and I have no replacements. It cites nothing about gay marriage, because that was before gay's tried to change the definition of it.

Webster is fail. The only dictionary I use is the Official Scrabble Dictionary.
You just got served.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'll post this again, as many seem to be ignoring it...

Again, you're misunderstanding. Let's take homosexual marriage out of the equation. Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right. Justice Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival[...]." The case was about an anti-miscegenation, so naturally they wrote their Opinion in the context of race. But the fact that it declares marriage as a fundamental right is crystal clear. That being said, then we review Prop 8 and its clear that denying homosexuals the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause.

I don't think people are ignoring it because they didn't see it.

Wow, that never occurred to me... They've always said I'm too naive.

[Coccygia]

I just heard about this on the radio and I think it is absolutely fantastic. I am beside myself with glee. There is no issue more important and no problem more pressing in America today than this.

:palm: *sarcasm*

[Grave_n_idle]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

The minority should have the same equal rights as the majority does. And the majority can only marry people from the opposite sex. Why should minorities have extra rights? They already have the equal rights that the majority have.

Also TurtleShroom makes a great deal of sense.

The majority only wants to marry people from the opposite sex.

Everyone has the right to marry. With someone from the opposite sex, ofc. Homosexuals also have this right. Everyone has literally gotten equal rights. So basically the gays aren't arguing for equal rights, but for "special" rights. Tell me, why should a minority have special rights? Doesn't that discriminate against the majority?

Honestly, it takes literally the least amount of effort imaginable to entirely deconstruct homophobic arguments.

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

So, you're objection isn't because you're homophobic, it's just because of some prejudice you have against homosexuals?

[Wamitoria]

None of the right-inclined posters here have considered the following: If the government can deny a person marriage based on their sexuality, what is stopping them from denying it based on your religion?

Since nobody responded to this, I'm going to have to assume that none of you can offer a rebuttal.

[Sdaeriji]

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic.

You're right, you know. This is why you are homophobic:

But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew.

[Gahaldu]

The power of the courts has gone too far. The Californian voters have spoken, and no where in the Constitution is gay marriage protected. If anything, this ruling is unconstitutional.

Why should people get to vote on the rights of a minority?

The minority should have the same equal rights as the majority does. And the majority can only marry people from the opposite sex. Why should minorities have extra rights? They already have the equal rights that the majority have.

Also TurtleShroom makes a great deal of sense.

The majority only wants to marry people from the opposite sex.

Everyone has the right to marry. With someone from the opposite sex, ofc. Homosexuals also have this right. Everyone has literally gotten equal rights. So basically the gays aren't arguing for equal rights, but for "special" rights. Tell me, why should a minority have special rights? Doesn't that discriminate against the majority?

Honestly, it takes literally the least amount of effort imaginable to entirely deconstruct homophobic arguments.

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

By that last statement, wouldn't adoption in itself be wrong? After all, a child is not meant to be raised by strangers, only the biological parents.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'll post this again, as many seem to be ignoring it...

Again, you're misunderstanding. Let's take homosexual marriage out of the equation. Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right. Justice Warren wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival[...]." The case was about an anti-miscegenation, so naturally they wrote their Opinion in the context of race. But the fact that it declares marriage as a fundamental right is crystal clear. That being said, then we review Prop 8 and its clear that denying homosexuals the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Since it's a basic right of man, women, obviously, cannot get married. Therefore, homosexual marriage is the only legal marriage we've had for years.

You sir, are a genius.

[Conserative Morality]

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary second edition. I was going to take a picture of the definition with my digital camera, but the batteries are dead and I have no replacements. It cites nothing about gay marriage, because that was before gay's tried to change the definition of it.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.

It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [4]

Webster's unabridged predates classical Rome?

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am thrilled and I look forward to reading all 136 pages of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Chief Judge Walker's opinion.

A few notes, however:

1. Chief Judge Walker found Prop. 8 independently unconstitutional under both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protect Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

2. Prop. 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment because it denies same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry:

The Due Process Clause provides that no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Due process protects individuals against arbitrary governmental intrusion into life, liberty or property. See Washington v Glucksberg, 521 US 702, 719-720 (1997). When legislation burdens the exercise of a right deemed to be fundamental, the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny. Zablocki v Redhail, 434 US 374, 388 (1978).

The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. See, for example, Turner v Safely, 482 US 78, 95 (1987) (“[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”); Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (1978) (“The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”); Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur, 414 US 632, 639-40 (1974) (“This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Loving v Virginia, 388 US 1, 12 (1967) (The “freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”); Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479, 486 (1965) (“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”).

Chief Judge Walker then explains at length why this right is not restricted to opposite-sex couples, how Prop. 8 denies same-sex couples this right "without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason, and therefore violates the Due Process Clause.

3. Prop. 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of gender and sexual orientation without a rational basis:

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” US Const Amend XIV, § 1. Equal protection is “a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” Yick Wo v Hopkins, 118 US 356, 369 (1886). The guarantee of equal protection coexists, of course, with the reality that most legislation must classify for some purpose or another. See Romer v Evans, 517 US 620, 631 (1996). When a law creates a classification but neither targets a suspect class nor burdens a fundamental right, the court presumes the law is valid and will uphold it as long as it is rationally related to some legitimate government interest. See, for example, Heller v Doe, 509 US 312, 319-320 (1993).

....Proposition 8 targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex. Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.

As presently explained in detail, the Equal Protection Clause renders Proposition 8 unconstitutional under any standard of review. Accordingly, the court need not address the question whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to a heightened standard of review. ....

The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.

Chief Judge Walker then explains at length why "excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest." He goes in turn through every rationale offered for Proposition 8 and explains why it fails. Thus, because Proposition 8 "disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

4. Chief Judge Walker is not some bleeding-heart liberal Democrat activist judge. He was first nominated to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, but that nomination was held up due to Democratic opposition based on his allegedly anti-gay activities. He was then nominated again to the U.S. District Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1989 and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent. After 15 years on the bench, he became the Chief Judge of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in 2004. Chief Judge Walker reportedly believes in a legal approach known as law and economics and allegedly has libertarian leanings. Some will undoubtedly make much of the fact that Chief Judge Walker is openly gay, but he has proven to be impartial and fair in his long time as a federal judge. link

5. Contrary to those whining about judicial activism or the "will of the voters, fundamental rights and equal protection of the laws do not depend on the whim of majority opinion or the outcome of elections. The Supreme Court explained this in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Despite this being a nearly 70-year old precedent, some right-wingers have rejected it as judicial activism. Well, guess what? Here is the same sentiment from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

The Bill of Rights is devised to protect you and me against, who do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take, that are favored by the majority, is a recipe for destruction of what we have had for 200 years.

I will now log off while I read the decision thoroughly.

[Zephie]

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary second edition. I was going to take a picture of the definition with my digital camera, but the batteries are dead and I have no replacements. It cites nothing about gay marriage, because that was before gay's tried to change the definition of it.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.

It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [4]

Webster's unabridged predates classical Rome?

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

[Almaniania]

None of the right-inclined posters here have considered the following: If the government can deny a person marriage based on their sexuality, what is stopping them from denying it based on your religion?

Since nobody responded to this, I'm going to have to assume that none of you can offer a rebuttal.

One thing is stopping them...
If it's Judaism, Israel is stopping them
If it's Christian, most people are Christian
If it's Muslim, well, then the Middle East will hate the US forever
If it's Budhism... who wants to stop Budha's awesomness anyways?
If it's Hinduism, India will be pissed
If it's Shinto, the US loses their base in Japan
If it's Confucianism, that's not a real religion so shut up
If it's Pastafarianism... who wants to stop the Flying Spaghetti Monster from sending you to a Heaven with tons of booze and women anyways?

Rebuttled. However, I do agree with you. I just wanted to post Pastafarianism!

[Grave_n_idle]

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary second edition. I was going to take a picture of the definition with my digital camera, but the batteries are dead and I have no replacements. It cites nothing about gay marriage, because that was before gay's tried to change the definition of it.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.

It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [4]

Webster's unabridged predates classical Rome?

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

Even the English didn't speak English when marriage was first recorded, nor even when the first recorded same-sex unions were codified.

[Sdaeriji]

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

I eagerly await your explanation on why it's relevant whether the Romans spoke English.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html

CNN) -- A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found in his ruling that the ban violated the Constitution's equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment.

The closely watched case came some two years after Californians voted to pass Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage said before the ruling that it would likely be the last. Both sides said the decision will be appealed and eventually wind up in the U.S.
"We have little doubt that this trial judge is going to knock down Prop. 8. I hope I'm proven wrong tomorrow," Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, said before the ruling. "This has been a judge that looks pretty eager to make a historic decision."

She added Walker's ruling would likely have national implications as he is a federal judge.

CNN Got to posting it, figured its a better source, specifically that it violates the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause.

I guess the Religious Right has another reason to want to change the 14th Amendment then.

And the first and the tenth....

That Constitution can be damn annoying sometimes, can't it?

[DaWoad]

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

Ahhh the unnatural argument so. . .refreshing.
There is more homosexuality in nature than there is many things that we use on a regular basis,
Once you go back to living in a tree, eating all your meals raw, fighting off predators with your bare hands or basic tools and drinking water straight from the stream THEN you can start calling homosexuality and homosexual adoption "unnatural" until then you're just another whinging hypocrite.

[Conserative Morality]

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

I wasn't using Webster's definition. Webster, obviously, did not come about until the Judeo-Christian ethics system heavily biased the view of the Western World. Marriage, however, predates that ethical system and, for that matter, Webster. Webster's definition uses a narrow definition of marriage, one that is historically incompatible with actual instances of marriage.

[Niur]

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary second edition. I was going to take a picture of the definition with my digital camera, but the batteries are dead and I have no replacements. It cites nothing about gay marriage, because that was before gay's tried to change the definition of it.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.

It is believed that same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history.[3] These gay marriages continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [4]

Webster's unabridged predates classical Rome?

HEY!!! I already pointed this out! Copy cat!

[Zephie]

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

Ahhh the unnatural argument so. . .refreshing.
There is more homosexuality in nature than there is many things that we use on a regular basis,
Once you go back to living in a tree, eating all your meals raw, fighting off predators with your bare hands or basic tools and drinking water straight from the stream THEN you can start calling homosexuality and homosexual adoption "unnatural" until then you're just another whinging hypocrite.

Fair enough. Homosexuality is abnormal.

[Zephie]

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

I wasn't using Webster's definition. Webster, obviously, did not come about until the Judeo-Christian ethics system heavily biased the view of the Western World. Marriage, however, predates that ethical system and, for that matter, Webster. Webster's definition uses a narrow definition of marriage, one that is historically incompatible with actual instances of marriage.

And forced and arranged marriage were practiced back in the old days, should we bring that back too or let 12 year olds get married?

[Grave_n_idle]

Lovely, if im against gay marriage, im obviously homophobic. But seriously, being against gay marriage, not to mention gay adoption, doesn't make me homophobic. It just means im against the legalisation of gay marriage, which is frankly something so wrong on so many levels. Homosexuals are homosexuals because they turned up that way, and because they decided to. And i dont dislike em for that, it's alright, everyone chooses his or her own lifestyle. But gay marriage and gay adoption, ew ew ew. A child is not supposed to have two fathers or two mothers.

Ahhh the unnatural argument so. . .refreshing.
There is more homosexuality in nature than there is many things that we use on a regular basis,
Once you go back to living in a tree, eating all your meals raw, fighting off predators with your bare hands or basic tools and drinking water straight from the stream THEN you can start calling homosexuality and homosexual adoption "unnatural" until then you're just another whinging hypocrite.

Fair enough. Homosexuality is abnormal.

Even if true, the Constitution doesn't discriminate against the abnormal.

[Unchecked Expansion]

That wasn't the definition from webster's. Did Romans speak English?

I wasn't using Webster's definition. Webster, obviously, did not come about until the Judeo-Christian ethics system heavily biased the view of the Western World. Marriage, however, predates that ethical system and, for that matter, Webster. Webster's definition uses a narrow definition of marriage, one that is historically incompatible with actual instances of marriage.

And forced and arranged marriage were practiced back in the old days, should we bring that back too or let 12 year olds get married?

If you;re arguing for Traditional and Universal definitions of marriage, you must want to

[Knowlandia]

With that logic, courts are unconstitutional. If you don't want gays getting married, just say so, stop pretending that you're trying to prove whats right.

I could say the reverse for your side. Stop pretending the Constitution supports you and just admit you don't care and support gay marriage even though constitutional clauses approved for the Californian Constitution by the voters forbid it.

Are you trying to say I'm gay? Because let's put it out there right now, I am not. Secondly, what "constitutioanl clauses" in specific are you talking about. I don't live in Cali, so I'm not familiar with there constitution. A link would help.